____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:56 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 07 August 2007 09:35 : \____
>>
>>> waterskidoo <water.skidoo@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> On 2007-08-06, Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Peter K would have us all on binary drivers, locked to hardware
>>>>> combinations determined by grey-suited people in smart offices.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think Peter said that at all.
>>>> Unless I am mistaken,he said that in the scheme of things
>>>> having a binary only driver is better than having no driver at all.
>>>> I agree with him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly - you too would have us all on binary drivers, unable to use
>>> anything but particular combinations of hardware which the manufacturers
>>> have pre-determined.
>>>
>>> That is not freedom, that is lock-in.
>>
>> Tell her that story about the DIMM.
>>
>
> Ahh, yeah - that one! It still amazes me now, and yet the price of
> lock-in can be very, very high. Maybe it's something for my blog.
Since Mark won't post it here (he told the story at a group's dinner), I'll
give you the gist. Some company sent a man from Sweden to upgrade the memory
capacity. What could have cost just 50 bucks cost more like 100,000. Why?
Because the company could afford this type of extortion. The vendor had a
lock-in and the customer had been negligent. Good for the vendor. It's their
way or no way.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL'd Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
07:05:01 up 1 day, 9:58, 6 users, load average: 0.24, 1.30, 1.35
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
